Its a gun range, expect it to be loud. Sorry but complaining that someone's gun is to loud for you to be by is a lousy excuse. I stand by my earlier comment. Expecting the range to accommodate the needs of one at the expense of everyone else is the beginning of the same downward trend our society has taken.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WARNING! NEVER shoot near a muzzle brake or compensator!
- Thread starter Lavan
- Start date
Its a gun range, expect it to be loud. Sorry but complaining that someone's gun is to loud for you to be by is a lousy excuse. I stand by my earlier comment. Expecting the range to accommodate the needs of one at the expense of everyone else is the beginning of the same downward trend our society has taken.
TMD said:Its a gun range, expect it to be loud.
Since the OP wore hearing protection, we can surmise that he did expect it to be loud.
TMD said:Sorry but complaining that someone's gun is to loud for you to be by is a lousy excuse.
No one offered that as an excuse.
TMD said:Expecting the range to accommodate the needs of one at the expense of everyone else is the beginning of the same downward trend our society has taken.
Having shooters using side ported rifle utilise the lanes that have a protective apparatus rather than ones more likely to produce injury isn't an increased expense to anyone. Moreover, minimising hearing damage isn't for the sake of one, but reduces the likelihood of injury to any other range member next to whom a particularly punishing rifle would be positioned.
If one had a rifle particularly punishing to those on either side, what reasonable basis could he have for insisting on using it in a lane that increases exposure to injury?
The odd thing is that when I quit at 9:30 am from sighting in a .223, my hearing didn't stop til 7 pm!
Hearing loss is oddly hard to predict. I've a partner who was assigned to an artillery unit in the 1960s. His hearing isn't too bad. I've had clients who worked in noisy plant environments for a couple of decades who have very serious loss.
I use dry fire adapters in ARs because the sound of the hammer hitting the bolt on an AR will set up a ringing in my ears. When I am at the range, it's muffs over plugs, and if my daughter is with me when something very loud sets up near us, we leave. This may occupy a middle ground between hyper-vigilance and prudence.
During my grade school days my barber would razz me about not cleaning my ears-"What are you trying to do, grow corn?" Looking back, I think letting my ear wax build up provided me with extra protection. I have been a "muffs and ear plugs" user since the 1970s-I even use ear muffs when I use power tools or a vacuum cleaner-and i wince when i see yard and grounds workers not wearing any protection. I even use plugs for re-enacting. When I was in the National Guard in the 1970s they still had the 106s-you talk about LOUD! Yes, muzzle breaks and compensators should not be used under roofs.
Phoenix54c
New member
My guess is that the offender was using a compensated .308. I agree that shooting beside one without some sort of barrier between you is a very percussive and unpleasant experience.
Double Naught Spy
New member
If one had a rifle particularly punishing to those on either side, what reasonable basis could he have for insisting on using it in a lane that increases exposure to injury?
Its a gun range.
I can't understand why anybody goes to a gun range where there are other shooters and isn't wearing plugs and muffs, particularly experienced shooters. What basis would they have for not maximizing their own protection. 50 cents of ear plugs with the muffs would have made a difference, especially with lower NRR muffs.
g.willikers
New member
In addition to wearing effective ear protection, make sure your protective eye glasses stems don't push the earmuffs off your ears.
DNS said:Its a gun range.If one had a rifle particularly punishing to those on either side, what reasonable basis could he have for insisting on using it in a lane that increases exposure to injury?
I can't understand why anybody goes to a gun range where there are other shooters and isn't wearing plugs and muffs, particularly experienced shooters. What basis would they have for not maximizing their own protection. 50 cents of ear plugs with the muffs would have made a difference, especially with lower NRR muffs.
I also wear plugs and muffs, but that doesn't address the question posed to TMD.
I take steps to protect my own hearing, but see no reasoned basis refusing to use piping designed to reduce harm to others.
Last edited:
FWIW none of the ranges around me or any I've ever been to have piping for guns people feel are too loud. In fact I've never ever seen them in person. Hence my earlier comments. Before anyone thinks I'm a novice shooter I'm actually in my mid 50's and have been shooting since before I joined the military at 17 years of age so I've been to ranges all over the US and several overseas.
Last edited:
I also have never seen a tube to fire through.
The only firearm I have with a muzzle brake is a 5.45 Saiga with the classic Russian ak74 brake. I also have a 16" 5.56 with no muzzle device at all.
I don't see a huge difference in muzzle blast effect when watching a friend shoot one or the other.
The only time I've been bothered, another club member started shooting a 50 Beowulf at the table next to me. From that 16" barrel with no muzzle device, the 50 Beowulf was very loud, and I could feel the concussion on my face..
The only firearm I have with a muzzle brake is a 5.45 Saiga with the classic Russian ak74 brake. I also have a 16" 5.56 with no muzzle device at all.
I don't see a huge difference in muzzle blast effect when watching a friend shoot one or the other.
The only time I've been bothered, another club member started shooting a 50 Beowulf at the table next to me. From that 16" barrel with no muzzle device, the 50 Beowulf was very loud, and I could feel the concussion on my face..
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The only piping I have ever seen was supposedly designed to stop people from shooting over the embankment.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I also wear plugs and muffs, but that doesn't address the question posed to TMD.
I take steps to protect my own hearing, but see no reasoned basis refusing to use piping designed to reduce harm to others.
So you always shoot through a pipe when you go to a range that has them? After all, the reports of your shots are harmful to others. It does not matter if you have a brake or not, unless you shoot suppressed, your shots are harmful to others.
DNS said:So you always shoot through a pipe when you go to a range that has them? After all, the reports of your shots are harmful to others. It does not matter if you have a brake or not, unless you shoot suppressed, your shots are harmful to others.I also wear plugs and muffs, but that doesn't address the question posed to TMD.
I take steps to protect my own hearing, but see no reasoned basis for refusing to use piping designed to reduce harm to others.
Emphasis added.
Your question doesn't follow from anything written in this thread. On the other hand, the question posed to TMD incorporated the information provided by the OP.
I wouldn't refuse to use one, particularly were I using a configuration that is "particularly punishing to those on either side". I see no reason to refuse to use one at all. I haven't seen a sewer tube used at the ranges I've used, but the thread isn't about me.
The OP states that he was wearing hearing protection and that these tubes were present at his range. A criticism of the OP's notice that he will not use his club's range unless ported rifles were required to use the devices doesn't rely on the rest of us having such a device available. An objection that range rules shouldn't be based on people being offended isn't sensible where that isn't the stated basis for OP's notice, and an objection that the OP is attempting what sort of firearm may be used misses that fact that the OP suggested no such prohibition.
The man wrote about an event and his ensuing severe (and we hope mostly temporary hearing loss). Some of the criticism of his position could only follow from not having read his entire post.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, I read it. I just felt that the recent hearing loss was totally preventable on the part of Lavan.
I will quote TMD in agreement ...
and add that folks have the ability to wear better hearing protection and take care of themselves doing so. If they REFUSE (your oft-repeated stipulation) to do so, then that is on them, plain and simple.
Lavan did not ask the shooter to move, despite being repeatedly enduring by the blasts of the ported "high intensity" rifle. Lavan did not move. Lavan did not double up his hearing protection. Lavan did not address the issue with the RO. All this, despite a history of hearing damage from not having used sufficient hearing protection in the past. The ported shooter never refused to use the pipe. The pipe wasn't required to be used and nobody asked him to do so. Lavan is blaming the range for his recent hearing loss when he had the power all along to rectify the problem and mitigate possible damage at the time.
Most folks at the range are pretty nice. The "high intensity" rifle shooter probably would have moved, if asked.
I will quote TMD in agreement ...
Its a gun range, expect it to be loud. Sorry but complaining that someone's gun is to loud for you to be by is a lousy excuse. I stand by my earlier comment. Expecting the range to accommodate the needs of one at the expense of everyone else is the beginning of the same downward trend our society has taken.
and add that folks have the ability to wear better hearing protection and take care of themselves doing so. If they REFUSE (your oft-repeated stipulation) to do so, then that is on them, plain and simple.
Lavan did not ask the shooter to move, despite being repeatedly enduring by the blasts of the ported "high intensity" rifle. Lavan did not move. Lavan did not double up his hearing protection. Lavan did not address the issue with the RO. All this, despite a history of hearing damage from not having used sufficient hearing protection in the past. The ported shooter never refused to use the pipe. The pipe wasn't required to be used and nobody asked him to do so. Lavan is blaming the range for his recent hearing loss when he had the power all along to rectify the problem and mitigate possible damage at the time.
Most folks at the range are pretty nice. The "high intensity" rifle shooter probably would have moved, if asked.
DNS said:No, I read it. I just felt that the recent hearing loss was totally preventable on the part of Lavan.
I will quote TMD in agreement ...
and add that folks have the ability to wear better hearing protection and take care of themselves doing so. If they REFUSE (your oft-repeated stipulation) to do so, then that is on them, plain and simple.Its a gun range, expect it to be loud. Sorry but complaining that someone's gun is to loud for you to be by is a lousy excuse. I stand by my earlier comment. Expecting the range to accommodate the needs of one at the expense of everyone else is the beginning of the same downward trend our society has taken.
One must also understand the text he reads. That one would refuse to use available piping isn't a stipulation; it inheres in TMD's objection. As already noted, the noise wasn't offered as an excuse, and the accommodation of using an existing apparatus isn't an expense, let alone one to everyone else.
The statement with which you find agreement rests on a basic misreading of the OP.
Lavan did not ask the shooter to move, despite being repeatedly enduring by the blasts of the ported "high intensity" rifle. Lavan did not move. Lavan did not double up his hearing protection. Lavan did not address the issue with the RO. All this, despite a history of hearing damage from not having used sufficient hearing protection in the past.
All of that is arguably true. None of it pertains to TMD's objection.
That another doesn't take all precautions isn't a reasonable basis for disregarding gratuitous harm to another. Or do you disagree?
The ported shooter never refused to use the pipe.
Do you understand anyone to have claimed otherwise?
TMD argues against an request for accommodation in the future. To refuse that future accommodation is the concept present in the question posed to him.
The "high intensity" rifle shooter probably would have moved, if asked.
It is possible that your speculation is correct, but it is certainly speculation and not pertinent to an objection to range rules calculated to reduce or minimize injury.
TMD argues against an request for accommodation in the future. To refuse that future accommodation is the concept present in the question posed to him.
I argue against the request because then a line has to be drawn and where is it going to be, caliber, barrel length, ported or not, or just because another shooter feels its too loud for their taste or a dozen other reasons?
Sorry but I still stand by my prior opinion. Its a GUN RANGE, its going to be loud. Adequate hearing protection is your responsibility not the range's. Because the OP felt another shooters gun was too loud for his inadequate hearing protection the other shooter shouldn't have to be the one to compromise.
TMD said:I argue against the request because then a line has to be drawn and where is it going to be, caliber, barrel length, ported or not, or just because another shooter feels its too loud for their taste or a dozen other reasons?
Sorry but I still stand by my prior opinion. Its a GUN RANGE, its going to be loud. ...
And it is going to have rules. Every range I've used has had rules, and such compromises are inherent in a well ordered and safe range. That a rule will be based on a criterion cannot itself be a reasonable basis for opposing a rule.
Note that the OP is not demanding or requiring his range to adopt mandatory use of a sound redirection apparatus.
Lavan said:At my orientation for the club, I brought up that I noticed sewer pipe sections at the end of the benches and asked if they were used for comped guns. I was told that's what they are there for, but it's up to the RO to decide whether to REQUIRE comped guns to be used with them.
Summing up, I have sent an email to the club advising of my situation and that I will NEVER again be able to use the range unless sound directors "pipes, etc.) are required for ported guns.
Emphasis added. He has given notice as to what he will or will not do.
I have shot near compensated rifles often. A compensated rifle can have a sound-pressure level of more than 160 db, the very best ear muffs alone are not sufficient to reduce this db level to a safe, pain free noise level. The best ear plugs alone are not enough either. There is some debate whether wearing ear plugs and ear muffs together will actually reduce this db level to below the hearing damage threshold, I suspect it's debatable, as I felt it was not quite sufficient on a few occasions.
And it is going to have rules. Every range I've used has had rules, and such compromises are inherent in a well ordered and safe range. That a rule will be based on a criterion cannot itself be a reasonable basis for opposing a rule.
Yup, every range I've ever been to has rules, especially for safety but I've never seen a sound limitation put on a firearm on any range I've ever been too.